Half a century after its commercialization, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology stands at a critical crossroads. Despite decades of investment and development, global CCS capacity remains astonishingly low, accounting for a mere 0.09% of total emissions worldwide. This stark reality highlights a profound shortfall in the ability of CCS to serve as a linchpin technology in the urgent fight against climate change. Even under scenarios where CCS installation rates increase tenfold immediately, projections suggest it will fail to deliver a meaningful contribution to emissions reduction by 2050. This sobering outlook challenges longstanding assumptions within climate policy and energy strategy paradigms, demanding a reevaluation of both our technological bets and strategic priorities.
The broader landscape of low-carbon technologies is similarly constrained, especially regarding the deployment of emission-free electricity generation, hydrogen production, and negative-emission technologies. The production capacity and scalability of these solutions remain limited by technological, economic, and resource-related factors. For hydrogen—which many see as a versatile fuel and feedstock—the supply chains and infrastructure remain nascent and insufficient to meet the projected global demand by mid-century. Meanwhile, negative-emission technologies, including direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), suffer from high costs, energy intensity, and uncertain scalability. These constraints exacerbate the urgency of recalibrating climate policy frameworks towards options with more achievable potential impacts.
Given these tight constraints, it becomes imperative to rethink the production of bulk materials—the backbone of modern industrial economies. Traditional manufacturing routes for steel, aluminum, glass, plastics, cement, and paper generate significant process emissions. To achieve meaningful emissions reductions, production processes must transition to being emission-free and powered exclusively by renewable or emission-free electricity sources. Yet, this ambitious objective must be balanced against the reality of a constrained global electricity budget. The challenge lies in generating the materials society requires without exceeding sustainable electricity generation thresholds.
Recent advances indicate that primary production of steel and paper can be fully electrified, which could eliminate process emissions traditionally dependent on fossil fuel combustion or reduction methods using carbon-based reductants. Electric arc furnaces and electrolytic processes for paper pulping represent paths towards decarbonized material manufacturing. However, the reliance of emerging green steel production techniques on hydrogen presents bottlenecks. The electrical intensity required to produce green hydrogen at scale is formidable, and supply limitations could cap the extent to which hydrogen-based steelmaking displaces conventional blast furnace routes.
The recycling of metals and other materials emerges as an essential lever in this recalibration. Steel, aluminum, glass, plastics, and potentially cement can be recycled with high efficiency and near-zero emissions relative to primary production. Recycling processes generally demand less energy and materials input than primary production, and their deployment contributes directly to reducing resource extraction impacts and associated carbon emissions. Emphasizing circular material flows minimizes dependence on emission-intensive primary processes and aligns with circular economy principles. The potential emissions reduction through comprehensive recycling programs is considerable and represents a more immediately feasible climate mitigation strategy.
Policy and research prioritization must shift accordingly. Improving the quality of recycled materials is vital to ensure that they can meet the stringent standards required for new production applications. Innovations in sorting technology, contamination reduction, and material recovery rates are necessary to maximize recycling efficiency and material quality. Concurrently, research should focus on product design optimization to facilitate easier and higher-quality recycling, thereby extending material lifespans while enabling continuous reuse without degradation of properties.
Material efficiency also demands greater attention within industrial and consumer contexts. Reducing the volume of materials required for given functions—through design innovations, lightweighting, and improved manufacturing precision—decreases overall demand and associated emissions. Such strategies extend beyond technological solutions to encompass behavioral, systemic, and product lifecycle considerations that can collectively reduce resource intensity.
The limited prospects for CCS and hydrogen as standalone pillars of climate mitigation underline the need to explore alternative pathways aggressively. This does not mean abandoning development of these technologies but appreciating their realistic roles within a diversified portfolio of solutions. Emphasis on electrification, recycling, and material efficiency could generate more immediate and substantial emissions reductions. Concurrently, policy frameworks should incentivize infrastructure investments that support these approaches, facilitating a transition to sustainable industrial systems.
An integrated approach that recognizes the constraints across technologies and sectors is essential to avoiding over-reliance on any one solution. This means balancing electrification with recycling and efficiency, while fostering innovation in materials science, process engineering, and circular economy mechanisms. The alignment of research priorities, industrial practices, and climate policies can catalyze systemic change in material production systems.
Public discourse and academic advice to policymakers must reflect this nuanced reality. Simplistic reliance on CCS and hydrogen as silver bullets may engender complacency and misallocation of resources. Instead, evidence-based guidance should prioritize options with higher certainty of impact and scalability. Clear communication about the limitations of certain technologies alongside the opportunities of others fosters informed decision making and effective action planning.
In sum, the persistent stagnation in CCS capacity and constraints in hydrogen and negative-emission technologies indicate a strategic impasse for mid-21st century climate mitigation. However, this challenge reveals significant alternative opportunities in electrification of primary production, enhanced recycling, and material efficiency. Pursuing these paths within the framework of a constrained global electricity supply demands innovation and concerted effort but offers a more tangible and immediate pathway to emission reductions. The future of climate policy and industrial sustainability hinges on embracing these alternatives as core priorities.
The trajectory ahead requires a transformation of how materials are produced, used, and reused globally. Industrial decarbonization will only be realized through coordinated advances in technology, infrastructure, policy, and consumer behavior. By shifting the focus away from limited and costly technologies towards scalable, low-emission, and resource-efficient approaches, the global community can better align economic development with climate goals. While it may no longer be feasible for CCS and hydrogen to dominate the mitigation landscape by 2050, their partial roles within a broader mix remain valuable components of a robust strategy.
Ultimately, this recalibrated vision underscores the urgency of rethinking industrial systems against the backdrop of climate change. Research efforts must attend closely to the circular economy, energy systems integration, and process innovation. Policymakers must craft incentives that support electrification, recycling infrastructure, and efficiency gains. The success of these collective efforts will determine whether material production becomes a driver of climate progress or an ongoing obstacle.
As the climate crisis intensifies and the window for effective action narrows, the imperative to recognize technology limitations and embrace achievable alternatives grows stronger. The shift away from an over-reliance on CCS and hydrogen towards electrification and recycling is not only pragmatic but necessary, anchoring hope for material-intensive economies to transition within planetary boundaries. This evolving understanding should now define academic, industrial, and policy dialogues in the years to come.
Subject of Research: Industrial decarbonization pathways focusing on the limitations of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen, and the potential of electrification and recycling in material production.
Article Title: Too late for CCS and hydrogen.
Article References:
Allwood, J.M. Too late for CCS and hydrogen. Nat Chem Eng (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44286-025-00344-1
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44286-025-00344-1
Tags: bioenergy with carbon capturecarbon capture and storage technologyclimate change mitigation strategiesdirect air capture advancementsemission-free electricity generationenergy policy and strategy reevaluationfuture of carbon reduction technologiesglobal CCS capacity challengeshydrogen production and scalabilitylow-carbon technology deploymentnegative emission technologiessupply chain limitations for hydrogen
